Kay
I quote from the Timah site:
"It should be emphasized that not all of the 5000 hectares of land
formerly used for mining is suitable for reclamation. More than half of
the total land in question has already been put to use by local
communities for housing and the cultivation of crops. Some of the land
has also been converted into public facilities, such as reservoirs of
drinking water."
5000 hectares is 50 km2 of virgin rain forest that can never be
reforested, at least under several millennia. And this is one tiny
amount compared to all the rain forest devastated for alluvial tin ore.
The ISO 14001 certificates impress me not a jot: the minimum requirement
to obtain one is that you comply with national regulations concerning
the environment. If these do not forbid slashing rain forest, then they
are, in this context, meaningless. How many species have been lost for
ever, because of tin mining? We shall never know, but I would not mind
betting that the number is very finite and, who knows, one of them might
just have been the source of a cure for a disease which you, or a loved
one, might contract in the future.
Let me tell you something: I live on an island which was the main source
of copper during the Bronze age, about 3000 years ago (in fact, it is
surmised that copper is named after the island or vice versa, Kypros in
Greek for the island, kupros for the metal: anyone familiar with Greek
will know there was much interchangeability of vowels over the years).
The ancient workings caused much devastation, the slag heaps still very
visible today, as well as the open-cast ore getting (there was also
extensive underground mining). Much of this is still more or less
sterile, despite coverings of loess over the ages. Incidentally, and
totally irrelevant to what I am saying, the island was then a big
forest: scientists estimate that to smelt all the copper that was mined
in ancient times required all the charcoal that the ancient forests
could supply 12 times over, in one millennium. Even today, the forest
coverage is small, probably (my estimate) less than 15% of the island,
despite an aggressive reafforestation policy since long before
Independence (1960) and which has continued since.
Another mining blot on this island is the result of asbestos mining at
Amiandhos (the French word for asbestos is amiante, and that is not a
coincidence, and we even have amianthus in English for the silky
asbestos mined here, from Greek amiantos, undefiled, purified by fire).
Although it has been mined since time immemorial, it is only since the
Industrial Revolution that it became a large-scale operation. It was
closed down 20-30 years ago, when asbestos became a dirty word, like
lead, even though amianthus is not considered dangerous. Today, despite
the best efforts of the Government to remedy it, the area looks like a
barren moonscape, as far as the eye can see. Yet it was one of the most
fertile parts of the island, originally mixed forest land intermingled
with fruit farming. Not very dissimilar to the barren areas in Malaysia
left over from tin mining, although the colour of the soil is different.
I agree that recycling would be the ideal, but I wonder to what extent
the electronics industry would accept non-virgin grade solder,
especially as requirements for fine-line SMD work can be very critical?
I don't believe this problem would arise with most other applications
for solder, representing about 50% of the consumption, but I do believe
that we shall always require Grade A solder, hence mostly from freshly
smelted tin. (Solders and Soldering, Manko, p. 46)
Brian
Kay Nimmo wrote:
>
> Anyone interested in some facts regarding environmental managment systems
> for tin mining might like to look at this website and related pages as an
> example of typical activity in Indonesia.
>
> http://pttimah.com/ems/ems3.htm
>
> Another example, Koba Tin have an agressive responsible approach to
> reforestation. This is in the form of a carefully planned and implemented
> integrated aquaculture, agriculture, forestry policy, carried out with input
> and co-operation of stakeholders; NGO's and statutory authorities. This is
> in order to avoid unnecessary disruptions and social misgivings.
>
> Of course, as we all know, the general aim of the WEEE proposals is to
> improve re-use and recycling of materials and therefore decrease requirement
> for primary metal production.
>
> Kay Nimmo
>
> +++++ Visit our lead-free.org website +++++
> ITRI Ltd, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middx, UK, UB8 3PJ
> tel: +44 (0)1895 272406 fax: +44 (0)1895 251841
> email: [log in to unmask] www.itri.co.uk and www.lead-free.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
> Sent: 29 March 2001 08:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] Join us in an Appeal to the IPC
>
> It would appear that some of us are talking at cross-purposes. I quote
> below an article which I wrote recently for a technical journal:
>
> I was recently shocked to the core! In fact, I'll use this column to cry
> SCANDAL. And what, may you ask, has caused this outcry? At the time of
> writing (it may have changed since), the proposed European Directive on
> Waste in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, the infamous WEEE, which
> is due to enter into force this year, and which proposes, amongst other
> things, to ban lead in solder as from 1 January 2008, is based on
> entirely false premisses.
>
> Let it be said that I fully support its proposals for recycling, at
> least for those components which can be recycled. I also support the
> notion that European member-nations organise free household collection
> of waste electrical and electronic equipment, although I hae ma doots
> about the enforcement of the proposed minimum of six kilograms per
> household per year. That having been said, I believe that at least 95
> percent of the lead in solder can be easily and even economically
> recovered and recycled (somewhat less with the tin). As the electronics
> industry consumes, in solder, only 0.5 percent of all the lead mined,
> that means that only 5 percent of 0.5 percent will remain on the bits
> and pieces left for disposal, truly a negligible quantity, so why ban
> the stuff?
>
> However, be that as it may, I cannot cry scandal over that, even though
> there are grounds for disagreement. What I can cry scandal about is that
> this proposed directive is purported to be necessary to protect the
> environment. I am all for the protection of the environment. But what I
> have discovered is that no scientific risk assessment of the presence of
> lead in electronics waste has been conducted nor has there been any
> assessment of the environmental consequences of replacing tin-lead
> solder with other alloys. Now, what exactly does this mean? It means
> that our industry is being conned by technocrats and politicians (not to
> mention vested interests who have been very vociferous) into complying
> with measures that will have undoubted negative technical and economical
> effects, for no reason at all. Worse still, it can be shown that there
> will be undoubted serious negative effects on the environment, which the
> persons who are proposing these measures have never even started to
> consider, while the positive effects are practically negligible.
> Unfortunately, space does not permit me to expand all of these in detail
> but we can cite, for example:
> - increased global warming (an estimated conservative global increase of
> 125 150 MWh of electricity will be consumed annually due to higher
> soldering temperatures)
> - increased water pollution (the presence of lead salts in cleaning and
> rinsing is a good guarantor that water treatment is properly carried out
> by both PCB fab and assembly shops: in some countries, there are no
> regulations for tin salts)
> - increased destruction of tropical rain forests (alluvial tin ore
> extraction in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil requires clearing of the
> primary tropical rain forests, with a concomitant risk of loss of
> species, because the quantity of tin required for electronics solder
> will increase by 50 percent)
> Unfortunately, this list is not even exhaustive. Precautionary
> principles are noble, on condition that they are founded on a reasonable
> risk assessment. This has not been done. This is a scandal that must be
> shouted from every rooftop in our industry.
>
> End of quotation
>
> What I fear is that the PCB Fab guys are not bothered by the
> implications on the PCB Assembly ones (and vice versa). We have to take
> a "cradle-to-grave" approach. This means from the moment the tin ore
> (etc.) is collected to the moment that the equipment, having served its
> normal lifetime of use is landfilled/incinerated. WEEE does not do this,
> nor do some correspondents here. Let us take off our blinkers and look
> beyond our small world of immediate activity, to see there is a much
> larger one outside.
>
> Brian
>
> Harvey Miller wrote:
> >
> > March 22, 2001
> >
> > Dear Electronics Industry Colleagues,
> >
> > The IPC through its President, Dennis McGuirk, has stated, "banning lead
> is
> > not based on good science", (EPP, Jan2001, pg 34). With regard to banning
> > lead in solder for electronics specifically, in the final analysis it is
> > clearly a bad choice both for the electronics industry and for the
> > environment.
> > While one can easily agree with President McGuirk's assessment, it seems
> > logical that we need a more pro-active policy actively opposing a
> misguided
> > initiative that by all appearances is primarily motivated by marketing
> > opportunism and pays little heed to the needs of the environment or the
> > overall impact of lead-free on it.
> > The IPC, as the leading trade association representing the electronic
> > interconnection industry, should do more in leading the way for
> science-based
> > risk assessment. To that end we are suggesting a modification to the
> current
> > position statement of the IPC as adopted by the board of directors.
> >
> > If you are in support of this premise and are interested in obtaining a
> copy
> > of the present IPC position statement and a copy of the proposed
> alternative
> > statement, please respond.
> >
> > Note that this is primarily an individual based effort and it is based on
> > individual conscience and their desire to see that the full impact of
> > lead-free be fully, fairly, honestly and scientifically evaluated before
> we
> > proceed further down this unproven path.
> >
> > Joe Fjelstad and Harvey Miller
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> > the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> > To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> Leadfree NOMAIL
> > Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
> E-mail Archives
> > Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> > information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> Leadfree NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
> E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
